Student evaluation of instruction: comparison between in-class and online methods

References

• Anderson, H. M., J. Cain, and E. Bird. 2005. “Online Student Course Evaluations: Review of Literature and a Pilot Study.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 69 (1): 34–42. doi:10.5688/aj690105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich, D. 1978a. “Application of a Psychometric Rating Model to Ordered Categories Which Are Scored with Successive Integers.” Applied Psychological Measurement 2 (4): 581–594.10.1177/014662167800200413
   Google Scholar
• Andrich, D. 1978b. “A Rating Formulation for Ordered Response Categories.” Psychometrika 43 (4): 561–573.10.1007/BF02293814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnau, R. C., R. L. Thompson, and C. Cook. 2001. “Do Different Response Formats Change the Latent Structure of Responses? An Empirical Investigation Using Taxometric Analysis.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 61 (1): 23–44. doi:10.1177/00131640121971040.10.1177/00131640121971040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avery, R. J., W. K. Bryant, A. Mathios, H. Kang, and D. Bell. 2006. “Electronic Course Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery System Influence Student Evaluations?” The Journal of Economic Education 37 (1): 21–37. doi:10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37.10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barkhi, R., and P. Williams. 2010. “The Impact of Electronic Media on Faculty Evaluation.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (2): 241–262. doi:10.1080/02602930902795927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, T. G., and C. M. Fox. 2007. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Clayson, D. E. 2008. “Student Evaluations of Teaching: Are They Related to What Students Learn? A Meta-analysis and Review of the Literature.” Journal of Marketing Education 31 (1): 16–30. doi:10.1177/0273475308324086.10.1177/0273475308324086
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crews, T. B., and D. F. Curtis. 2011. “Online Course Evaluations: Faculty Perspective and Strategies for Improved Response Rates.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36 (7): 865–878. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.493970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dommeyer, C. J., P. Baum, and R. W. Hanna. 2002. “College Students’ Attitudes toward Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: In-class versus on-line.” Journal of Education for Business 78 (1): 11–15. http://heldref-publications.metapress.com/index/7n443046687h27v2.pdf10.1080/08832320209599691
   Google Scholar
• Dommeyer, C. J., P. Baum, R. W. Hanna, and Kenneth S. Chapman. 2004. “Gathering Faculty Teaching Evaluations by in-class and Online Surveys: Their Effects on Response Rates and Evaluations.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (5): 611–623. doi:10.1080/02602930410001689171.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, J., C. Mader, and J. Shinsky. 2007. “Online vs. Traditional Course Evaluation Formats: Student Perceptions.” Journal of Interactive Online Learning 6 (3): 158–180.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, J., C. Mader, and J. Shinsky. 2010. “Constructive Student Feedback: Online vs. Traditional Course Evaluations.” Journal of Interactive Online Learning 5 (3): 283–297. http://medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243 N.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fike, D. S., D. J. Doyle, and R. J. Connelly. 2010. “Online vs. Paper Evaluations of Faculty: When Less is Just as Good.” The Journal of Effective Teaching 10 (2): 42–54. http://uncw.edu/cte/et/articles/Vol10_2/Fike.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Gamliel, E., and L. Davidovitz. 2005. “Online versus Traditional Teaching Evaluation: Mode Can Matter.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (6): 581–592. doi:10.1080/02602930500260647.
   Google Scholar
• Gravestock, P., and E. Gregor-Greenleaf. 2008. Student Course Evaluations: Research, Models, and Trends. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
   Google Scholar
• Guder, F., and M. Malliaris. 2010. “Online and Paper Course Evaluations.” American Journal of Business Education 3 (2): 131–138. http://cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/AJBE/article/viewArticle/392.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, N. 2003. “Online Ratings: Fact and Fiction.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2003 (96): 31–38. doi:10.1002/tl.120.10.1002/(ISSN)1536-0768
   Google Scholar
• Heath, N. M., S. R. Lawyer, and E. B. Rasmussen. 2007. “Web-based versus Paper-and-pencil Course Evaluations.” Teaching of Psychology 34 (4): 259–261.10.1080/00986280701700433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmieleski, K., and M. V. Champagne. 2000. “Plugging in to Course Evaluation.” Chapel Hill, NC: The Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. Accessed September 15. http://technologysource.org/article/plugging_in_to_course_evaluation.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, K. M. 2003. “Online Course Evaluation and Reporting in Higher Education.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2003 (96): 25–29. doi:10.1002/tl.119.10.1002/(ISSN)1536-0768
   Google Scholar
• Layne, B. H., J. R. DeCristoforo, and D. McGinty. 1999. “Electronic versus Traditional Student Ratings of Instruction.” Research in Higher Education 40 (2): 221–232. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018738731032.10.1023/A:1018738731032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung, D. Y. P., and D. Kember. 2005. “Comparability of Data Gathered from Evaluation Questionnaires on Paper and through the Internet.” Research in Higher Education 46 (5): 571–591. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-3365-3.10.1007/s11162-005-3365-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre, J. M. 2012. Winsteps® Rasch Measurement Computer Program User’s Guide. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre, J. M. 2014. Winsteps® Rasch Measurement Computer Program. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y. 2006. “A Comparison Study of Online versus Traditional Student Evaluation of Instruction.” World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, April, 1–15. http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=20637&from=NEWDL.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzo-Seva, U., and J. M. F. ten Berge. 2006. “Tucker’s Congruence Coefficient as a Meaningful Index of Factor Similarity.” Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 2 (2): 57–64.
   Google Scholar
• Masters, G. N. 2005. “Objective Measurement.” In Applied Rasch Measurement, edited by S. Alagumalai, D. D. Curtis, and N. Hungi, 15–25. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, K. 2013. “Online and Paper Evaluations of Courses: A Literature Review and Case Study.” Educational Research and Evaluation 19 (7): 585–604. doi:10.1080/13803611.2013.834608.10.1080/13803611.2013.834608
   Google Scholar
• Norris, J., and C. Conn. 2005. “Investigating Strategies for Increasing Student Response Rates to Online Delivered Course Evaluations.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 6 (808): 13–29.
   Google Scholar
• Nulty, D. D. 2008. “The Adequacy of Response Rates to Online and Paper Surveys: What Can Be Done?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (3): 301–314. doi:10.1080/02602930701293231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ory, J. C. 1990. “Student Ratings of Instruction: Ethics and Practice.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1990 (43): 63–74.10.1002/(ISSN)1536-0768
   Google Scholar
• Perrett, J. J. 2013. “Exploring Graduate and Undergraduate Course Evaluations Administered on Paper and Online: A Case Study.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (1): 85–93. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.604123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasch, G. 1980. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Remmers, H. H., and G. C. Brandenburg. 1927. “Experimental Data on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instruction.” Educational Administration and Supervision 13: 519–527.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, P. M., and J. A. Siguaw. 2000. “Student Evaluations of Teaching: An Exploratory Study of the Faculty Response.” Journal of Marketing Education 22 (3): 199–213. doi:10.1177/0273475300223004.10.1177/0273475300223004
   Google Scholar
• Spooren, P., B. Brockx, and D. Mortelmans. 2013. “On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching: The State of the Art.” Review of Educational Research. 83 (4): 598–642. doi:10.3102/0034654313496870.10.3102/0034654313496870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stowell, J. R., W. E. Addison, and J. L. Smith. 2012. “Comparison of Online and Classroom-based Student Evaluations of Instruction.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (4): 465–473. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.545869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Thorpe, S. W. 2002. “Online Student Evaluation of Instruction: An Investigation of Non-response Bias.” Paper presented at the 42nd annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto, June. Accessed August 22. http://www.memphis.edu/sete/pdfs/online-eval.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Venette, S., D. Sellnow, and K. McIntyre. 2010. “Charting New Territory: Assessing the Online Frontier of Student Ratings of Instruction.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (1): 97–111. doi:10.1080/02602930802618336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wachtel, H. K. 1998. “Student Evaluation of College Teaching Effectiveness: A Brief Review.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 23 (2): 1–24. doi:10.1080/0260293980230207.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B. D., and G. N. Masters. 1982. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
   Google Scholar